15 Oct 2004 | Ryan C. said...

Thought I can't say I support him, I must admit I've always favored the Bush camp's designs..

15 Oct 2004 | Brennen said...

Todd Dominey has a few words on a rare Bush sticker he finds compelling in Atlanta. Here in Portland this week I've seen two Kerry posters that I've appreciated, on that was forest green with just the johnkerry.com website address, and another was in Spanish and said "Unidos con Kerry," which gives the type a different presence from the norm.

15 Oct 2004 | kev said...

...he conveniently ignores that the Bush/Cheney designer is stealing sheep with the URL on that sticker... But other than that, he's got good points. :(

15 Oct 2004 | Chris from Scottsdale said...

I'm for Bush, so maybe I'm biased but for quite a long time I've thought the Kerry signs have been unimaginative. In the primary his signs were bolder. The typeface and lack of colors are entirely boring.

Who wants to talk about the campaign websites?

15 Oct 2004 | Davezilla said...

I think it's pointless to spend a second thinking about it. These men did not design their own logos, therefore the designs only reflect the art directors who made them.

15 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

I think we've lost complete and utter sight of anything remotely important in terms of issues in this election.

15 Oct 2004 | Jamie said...

What about Nader's sticker?

15 Oct 2004 | Chris from Scottsdale said...

To the last two posters, my thought is that Fried said this was politics aside and purely graphic design considerations.

Considering this is our profession, at least it's mine, it's an interesting discussion. It's not like somebody's going to vote based on the graphic design. I sure hope not.

15 Oct 2004 | Jay Jones said...

What do you mean, "lost sight"?... and what do you mean, "it's pointless"?

Whether you favor either of these candidates, or could care less about the whole thing, there is a very good reason to look at the differences between the two stickers... it's about marketing. The observations aren't meant to show which candidate is more worthy of being president, but rather which candidate's marketing team created a more effective sticker.

Clearly, Kerry's group didn't put much though into what their typography and layout would communicate.

15 Oct 2004 | Benjy said...

I've always thought that candidates for political office on all levels need to do a better job of branding their campaigns. Every single candiate always uses red, white and blue. With a flag and stars. Are they that fearful that people won't vote for them if they don't seem over-the-top patriotic? Have focus groups shown that people actually do behave that way?

Should we be having to look at the font weights and how stylized the flag is to differentiate between the candidates' marketing materials?

15 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

The observations aren't meant to show which candidate is more worthy of being president, but rather which candidate's marketing team created a more effective sticker.

They're both crap. One is maybe less crappier than the other, but it's simply a study in typographic navel gazing. Neither of these are of a caliber even worth critiquing.

So, if you put the politics aside, I guess I'd say it's not very interesting at all. I will give kudos to both PR teams for at least making their yard sign different than the others.

What about Nader's sticker?

Nader, like the Green Party, have an image consistency problem. Though I will say the Cobb items are fairly consistent, though full of pointless gradients and bad type decoration.

15 Oct 2004 | chugs said...

as davezilla said... i dont think u can extrapolate the sensibilities of the designers onto the policies/personalities of the candidates.

the candidates didnt design the logos. u dont even know if had a say in the design. even if they had...they would have a clue about what the designs conveyed.

15 Oct 2004 | Ryan Schroeder said...

I thought the original "John Kerry" logotype was quite strong, but "Kerry/Edwards" pales in comparision. It's just so weak.

15 Oct 2004 | Adrian said...

I agree with Ryan. I loved the shade of blue used on the original John Kerry stickers and have been on the lookout for those stickers instead of the new stickers with Edwards' name on it.

15 Oct 2004 | noah said...

Yeah, is this a joke or what? Let's completely skip over the completely lazy kerning in Dubya's URL, but point out how much space there is between a "K" and an "e", even though they're practically overlapping other at the baseline?

Can someone provide the link for the article this image is connected to?

15 Oct 2004 | sloan said...

I laughed at the Kerry table when I picked up my bumper sticker. I looked at it and asked "Are they TRYING to lose?" It is an incredibly amatuerish looking sticker and for such a close race something like this can actually make a difference. Then again, I think their whole campaign has sucked but luckily Bush is so incompetent he couldn't keep it together during the debates.

15 Oct 2004 | Blake Scarbrough said...

I am also really impressed with Bush's other logo, 'W'
georgewbushstore2.cybrhost.com/200-6000.htm
It targets a whole new crowd,—the svelt, stylish, mercedes driving people.

15 Oct 2004 | langdon said...

Given that this is a design site, I would think it is perfectly acceptable and relevant to be obsessing over the design of the campaign bumper stickers.

and, Kerry is on record as having been directly involved in the design of the campaign logo. A NYTimes profile of him a few weeks included a mention of frustrations of several staffers that he took so long to make up his mind about the logo.

all politics aside, the fact that we have an efficent, focused bumper sitcker vs. a disorganized one with conflicting desing elements is a hilarious accidental metaphor for both campaigns.

15 Oct 2004 | brian breslin said...

i have an idea, why not have an informal competition whereby everyone who reads this site comes up with their own versions of BOTH stickers (you have to create one for each camp, as this is an apolitical discussion)

what does everyone think?

15 Oct 2004 | Blake Scarbrough said...

brian breslin said: why not have an informal competition whereby everyone who reads this site comes up with their own versions of BOTH stickers (you have to create one for each camp, as this is an apolitical discussion)

Bush's Sticker already hits the mark
(if it is not broke, don't fix it). It is kerry's sticker that needs help.

15 Oct 2004 | Gene said...

My achin head....

and for the record, I don't think Nader is running on the Green ticket...???

15 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

It is an incredibly amatuerish looking sticker and for such a close race something like this can actually make a difference.

A lot of voters are stupid and will vote on some inane single issue, but deciding based on the typography of a candidates logo? Huh?

The only purpose these 'logos' serve is to show what team you are on. As there are only two teams, it's not like they have to try too hard to differentiate themselves.

15 Oct 2004 | Darrel said...

I am also really impressed with Bush's other logo, 'W'

Highly unoriginal, but certainly different. Not sure how useful it is at 'getting the word' out. Seems more like a 'secret club' type of thing for the tax loop-hole crowd.

15 Oct 2004 | p8 said...

It one team uses serif will the other automatically use sans-serif to differentiate from the competitor?

A bit of topic ... but this video shows Bush speaking fluent uninterrupted sentences 10 years ago. Today we can see 'the striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills. Why?

Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as demonstrated so clearly by the President [sic], can represent only one diagnosis, and that is 'presenile dementia'! Presenile dementia is best described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer's situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what is usually considered old age." Joseph M. Price, M.D. of Carsonville, Michigan

I'm not a Bush fan but I think it's pretty sad. This also explains why he probably was wired.

Once the media will get a hold of this Bush will lose, no matter what his stickers look like.

15 Oct 2004 | Chris Vincent said...

Most of the observations are incredibly subjective, and I think the analysis was obviously biased. Where one might see an "aggressive" flag, another might see an overbearing nationalism. Where one might see light weight type indicative of "inexperience", another might see it as careful or sensitive.

Where in the hell do they get "inexperience" from the space between a K and an E?

Of course design and typography convey a message, but nothing so specific as shown in this example. There are few places where it can be called a science (color theory being one of these places, and even that is prone to subjectivity); whoever wrote that analysis obviously knew what he wanted to find beforehand.

15 Oct 2004 | p8 said...

Of course design and typography convey a message, but nothing so specific as shown in this example.

Precisely, they forgot to mention the most important part of the stickers: the N A M E S.
The only thing 99% of the people care about.

The black W sticker is a different story though.

16 Oct 2004 | David Erwin said...

Bush also uses a footmark for an apostrophe.

This is a rebuttal of the NYT graphic I posted a couple of days ago.

16 Oct 2004 | Paperhead said...

For a room full of designers no-one appears to have bothered saying the obvious yet, so I'll jump in there with it:

Paula Scher's signature style is floating oversize type across a limited space. Look at both of those designs. Seriously, which design did you expect her to prefer?

***
Personally I think they both suck. The Bush one shows a lack of respect for the flag but shouts the loudest. It says that the image of America (as represented by the flag) can be manipulated to make Bush look better. The Kerry one is limp, but the consistent sizing for both names suggests that they are a team and it shows a certain reverence for the flag.

Ho hum.

16 Oct 2004 | p8 said...

The Kerry one is limp, but the consistent sizing for both names suggests that they are a team

The Bush one shouts Bush to distract the 'patriots' and then shows, for those in the know, what you really are voting for: Cheney '04 (which is almost horizontally and vertically centered).

16 Oct 2004 | Jose Rui Fernandes said...

Considering the sticker alone, I would vote for Bush.
Darrel, regarding the stupidity of voters, that's arguably one of the advantages of democracy -- to give stupid people the same rights you have.
Most of the votes are based in intangible values, like confidence or trust and not in tangible indicators like economy, health care, war disgrace or others. In that matter, the Bush sticker communicates a lot more of that intangible values than the Kerry sticker.
Who would believe in a "stronger america" with that typeface?

17 Oct 2004 | nyquil said...

i like david's take on the subject... great reversal. just proves the author is always in control.

ps: i can't wait for the bush bulge debacle. i watched the first debate and it was really there. wake up all.

17 Oct 2004 | indi said...

From a design perspective I think CHENEY has to be in a smaller font size since it is a longer name than BUSH and would overpower it otherwise. I actually find the Kerry/Edwards sticker harder to read at a glance. Maybe a sans-serif typeface is a better idea for this kind of application.

About those "W" stickers. The one I've seen is oval with a serif W. It does have that exclusive in-crowd air to it. But around So Cal you can't put one on your car or it will get keyed.

By the way Darrel, I'm still looking for those tax loop-holes ... I guess I don't qualify for the club :-)

17 Oct 2004 | Ed F. said...

Italics convey movement, speed, modernity, energy

That had some interesting comments about the signage for sure, but the above quote is like a a first month joke in typography class in art school.

"Yeah so if I italicize my type logotype, that means it's looking toward the future, it's fast, it's swift."

No, what it means is that your logotype is on a slant, usually to the right. and that's it.

17 Oct 2004 | dr. robotnik said...

It does have that exclusive in-crowd air to it. But around So Cal you can't put one on your car or it will get keyed.

That really irks me. I have yet to hear of a Kerry or Nader stickered car getting keyed.

18 Oct 2004 | Chris Vincent said...

"That really irks me. I have yet to hear of a Kerry or Nader stickered car getting keyed."

Oh, come on. This happens on both sides of the spectrum. Didn't you hear about the woman who was fired for refusing to remove a Kerry/Edwards sticker from her car? I'm sure the boss didn't do it because he didn't appreciate the typography.

18 Oct 2004 | dr. robotnik said...

No, I didn't hear about that one. I am talking about keyed cars/damaged property - though your story is very unfortunate.

18 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

And, of course. it's much worse to have your car keyed than to be fired. That's private property those loonies are defacing!

18 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Ouch, that factory owner is a jerk. We need to respect each other's opinions in a civil society. She certainly seems to have legal recourse. I will bet she gets her job back.

The odd thing is that from her account, her boss wasn't telling her who to vote for, he just wanted her to remove the "offending" sticker but she kept telling him he couldn't tell her who to vote for.

But overall I still think she was within her rights to display the sticker and her boss is just a major jerk.

Talking about damaged property, what is it with the AFL-CIO having their members storm Bush-Cheney and republican campaign headquarters around the country. Do they really think that will accomplish anything other than create greater hostilities?

18 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

And how about that voter registration firm that threw out (in the trash) the registration forms that were filled out by Democrats? Fortunately no private property was damaged.

19 Oct 2004 | indi said...

Oh come on Andy, they didn't throw out democrat's voter registration forms ... they ripped them up and then threw them out!

And if true, that is about as bad as it gets. Except for maybe this guy who filled out false democratic voter registration forms for crack ... on behalf of the NAACP. Like I said, OUCH.

19 Oct 2004 | Andy said...

On the plus side, we don't live in a dictatorship.